In our never ending quest for information about the adoption industry, we started plowing through the IRS 990 forms of the various adoption related organizations using the guidestar.org website. We were already aware that the non-profit status of the organizations doesn't imply a non-profit attitude of the people working within those organizations.

The complete list of non-profit organizations was far too long for us to go through, so we took the 50 organizations we knew best and created a list of the people earning more than $100,000, excluding benefits and expenses, that can be as much as $125,465 in the case of Buckner International's president.The list is sorted in descending order of income. Some organizations are mentioned more than once, because they have more than one official making over $100,000.

This list is far from representative, because of the preselection we made, though we hope it is indicative of the personal income being made by these officials of non-profit organizations.

I'm sure many see adoption as a humanitarian effort, (helping children live better lives, through parents who can afford to give "more" to a child who has little), so what's the difference between an adoption agency and an agency like Unicef?

The cynicist in me will say not much, especially since the president of the United States Fund for Unicef makes even more money than the #1 from the above list, receiving a whopping $427,788, benefits and expenses excluded. On the other hand, Unicef takes a much more critical stance towards international adoption than the average adoption agency would. An adoption agencies interest is in finalizing adoptions where Unicef has not such goal. Meanwhile in Romania cooperates with Holt, so the line between charity and adoption industry is often more blurry than one would expect.

I just looked at the Joint Council on International Children's Services and now understand why Tom DiFilippo so much feels the need to suck up to NCFA's Thomas Atwood. The poor man is only making little over a quarter of the money the Joint Council's chief is reaping over the year 2006. Though there was an additional $70,000 coming from Casi Foundation for the year 2006, so his children will probably not die of hunger.

Just checked Guidestar. According to JCICS' 2008 tax form, Tom DiFilipo's salary was 131,310 in 2008.

In 2006 his salary was 40,000 (both years Tom worked 40 hours per week) So his salary more than tripled, while the trade organization he leads is almost bankrupt.

See the post: Joint Council on International Childrens Services - Stakeholder initiative: "The document establishes two distinct problems JCICS is facing.

First of all the trade association of adoption service providers is in dire straights and needs to seriously cut back its activities to remain financially sustainable. The document is not all that specific how financial sustainability can be achieved without eliminating their core activity "advocacy, awareness and public policy initiatives"."

In comparison many adoption agencies have had a significant revenue loss in the last 3 years. Some as much as 70%. One example is World Links International Adoption Agency out of PA., who just 4 short years ago was grossing over $1.2 million. Their last filed 990 IRS form shows that while their revenues shrunk to just over $300K, the Executive Director maintains a large salary of $80K but has noted that she now works 60-80 hours a week and has taken out personal credit lines to keep the agency (her business) afloat.

Some Executive Director/owners however have lowered their salaries to reflect the loss of business.

For now, I only checked up on Barndardo's, and found out they have one official having an income in the bandwidth: £150,000 - £159,999, which with the current exchange rate of 2.0198 amounts to an income between $303,000 - $323,000. Furthermore they have:

1 staff member with an income between £120,000 - £129,999 ($242,000 - $263,000)

3 staff members with an income between £90,000 - £99,999 ($182,000 - $202,000)

3 staff members with an income between £80,000 - £89,999 ($162,000 - $182,000)

13 staff members with an income between £70,000 - £79,999 ($141,000 - $162,000)

6 staff members with an income between £60,000 - £69,999 ($121,000 - $141,000)

Nil per os is about what you'd get if you were to ask B's for a comment on any of that. Though I don't want to be unfair to Barnardos it has helped to bring about a lot of reforms in recent times. It is its attitude to those who passed trough its doors in the past which I find most disturbing. What can we expect in the future for those children it helps today, I wonder?

Mr Nearey I assume, previously Director General of the Prison Service and then Commissioner for Correctional Services in England and Wales, then Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service, he achieved some very important reforms in that part of his career and would I thought make a far better CEO of Barnardo's than Roger Singleton had in the latter part of his time there. I'm not sure my hopes have been fulfilled

A few of those high salaries may be on the fund raising side of the organisation

What interests me more is the list of members of the Board of Trustees of Barnardo's and how it is chosen and elected, I'll try and find it again. The current President of Barnardos is the Duchess of Cornwall wife of Prince Charles who stepped in after Cherie Booth QC (professional name of Cherrie Blair, Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair's wife and prominent Human Rights lawyer). The board seems to be made up of senior clergy, industrialists and members of the aristocracy. The Board of Trustees often has final say on policy

It has appeared at times to be an organisation that often waists money, it spends huge amounts of money on sometimes rather doubtful press and TV advertising which whilst it may well bring money in, gives a false impression, in my opinion

Robin Harritt
(for the record an ex-inmate of Dr Barnardo's Homes and victim of its adoption agency's good intentions)http://harritt.eu

Isn't Emma Nicholson quite keen on cleaning up international adoption (even anti in the view of those who think it's the best thing since sliced bread)? I'd always thought of her as one of the good guys in that area

I'm so sick of people complaining about the cost of adoption!!!! First of all, it's a CHILD you are buying, not a coat or a car. Second of all, there are people who need to be paid, like the staff members who ignore and mistreat the kids at the orphanages, and the doctors who lie about the condition of the next child to go. Then there are the lawyers and government officials who need to have their palms greased, too. I mean, you do want the adoption to be legal, don't you? Want to know why adoption costs so much? Because people are willing to buy kids like it's a new toy or fashion accessory and pretend it's a great humanitarian thing to do. People buy into the idea of adopting a child, but then complain about the suggested retail price! How stupid! You are buying a child so people in the business of selling kids can wear nice clothes, eat more meals than they need and live in houses most of us can't imagine ever affording to live in. Those "additional fees" that need explaining? Think of them as being the cut each person makes after an unwanted poor child gets moved to a new location. Think of those fees as being the commission a realtor makes when selling a house or the money a car salesman makes each time a used car gets sold. Think of those fees being split many ways by many money hungry people.

Here's a suggestion. How about finding a new interest? Believe it or not, there are people in this world who don't need to buy a child to feel good about themselves or feel like they made a difference in the life of another. It is better to give than to receive. (Acts 20) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejYWy_1tHJk

Several months ago Amy opened a new blog , while closing the old one, which is now indeed only open to invitees. You can contact her through her new blog http://www.amyadoptee.com.

As for the reasons behind the cost of adoption, the commentator above me gave a pretty good summary. I'd like to add one more variable, which is the so-called orphanage donation, which is the most dubious of all cost. Most cost are more or less transparent. You pay $10 for a photocopy, $500 for a $100 translation job, $250 dollars for the processing of a document that takes 10 mins, etc. Most of those costs are simply overcharged, but at least you know what you pay for. The orphanage donation on the other hand is a mandatory payment no one knows what it is being used for. At the same time, it is a large sum of money, in the order of $5000, to be paid to the orphanage in the sending country. What is being done with the money, no one knows. It can be used for the maintenance of the orphanage (although keeping children in run down orphanages is a big selling point), but it may as well be used to pay off child trafficker. Given the level of corruption in most sending countries it's unlikely the amount of money donated to orphanages is used in the best interest of children.

I bet the latest news will send a celebratory salary-increase across the board over at Buckner International:

DALLAS - Buckner Adoption and Maternity Services received its official accreditation certificate from Russian authorities July 28, completing a two-year process that caused Buckner to suspend Russia adoptions until the notification was received.

"We are so thrilled to receive this good news," said Debbie Wynne, director of Buckner Adoption. "Russia is our oldest international adoption program, so it's a privilege to be able to continue serving these children and to find them loving homes."

"It has been a long process, but we're so thankful to the Russian government for working with us to get to this point," said Albert Reyes, president of Buckner Children and Family Services. "Having this accreditation means Buckner is able to provide loving homes for Russian orphans."

In May 2006, Buckner Adoption's annual accreditation expired. Laws required Buckner to file paperwork as an official Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Russia before reaccreditation would be renewed, Wynne explained. From that point, the Ministry of Education had to review paperwork and receive signatures from multiple government agencies in regions across the country.

There are currently 38 U.S. adoption agencies accredited to facilitate international adoptions from Russia.

"The good news about all of this is that Russia passed a law which provides accredited adoption agencies with a non-expiring certificate," Wynne said. "We used to have to reapply for accreditation each year."

"I've been looking at one agency's 990s. They are a "501(c)(3) - Public Charity." (That alone makes me want to hurl.)

On the 990 they state:

"Organization's primary exempt purpose:
The organization provides guidance and counseling in the field of BIRTHPARENT-INITIATED adoptions"

and yet under "Relationship of activities to the accomplishment of exempt purposes" they list:

line 93a "Adoption client fees - Income which allows the organization to conduct birthmother outreach programs and provide education for birthmothers." ($3,348,794.00)

line 93b "Home studies - Income which allows the center to conduct birthmother outreach programs and provide education for birthmothers." ($130,050.00)

line 103b "Other income - Income which allows the center to conduct birthmother outreach programs and provide education for birthmothers." ($27,127.00)

It seems a bit odd if their organization's primary exempt purpose is dealing with BIRTHPARENT-INITIATED adoptions that they would need to spend so much money on BIRTHMOTHER OUTREACH PROGRAMS.

Their total revenue claimed is $3,578,499.00.
Almost $1,500,000.00 goes to "other salaries and wages" which doesn't include the directors' compensations.

So it seems that most all of the money they bring in goes to paying salaries and finding more young expectant women ripe for rape. And this is what nonprofit status is all about. You don't give any profits to shareholders - all of the money goes back into "your product."

This is their 2003 return - just imagine how well they're doing today!!!"